User talk:Rcoll23/sandbox

Feedback!
I think the article is very organized, and flows together good. The author gives a broad generalization of who Judy Goldsmith is then begins to talk about her life before her organization, during, and after giving us a great understanding.

The content is very clear, but I would say there are some unnecessary information and a few times where I sensed opinions. For example, in the first paragraph, second sentence, it talks about her father not being very responsible.

Also, the article is about Judy Goldsmith, not her mother so the part about her mother being discriminated against and working side by side with a man, might be a little off topic.

This article is a good example of an article that considers all perspectives. It talks about the hardships Judy went through and also the benefits after getting involved with her organization NOW.

I think the author did an outstanding job of citing their information, they went above and beyond the minimum 5 sources and cited 11 sources which all seem to be credible. I need to add more to mine!

I think the article might be a bit too informative, where as I almost lost interest to read at some points. Stick to key points. Sometimes less is more Taylorbenton (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(username hey i have a question about the article we are writing. Rcoll23 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Life Before NOW: I would take out “not being very responsible” because it shows an obvious point of view Do you know what job Becker’s mom had? If so be specific and take out and replace with “doing the same exact job” In second to last sentence change “late having a daughter name Rachel” to “had a daughter named Rachel”

Life During NOW: First sentence is confusing- reword “there were tons of ads for men and significant disadvantages for women” to maybe something like “the vast amount of ads for men led to significant disadvantages for women.” Capitalize Congress Sentences are a bit choppy, harder to follow

Smeal v Goldsmith Take out “,many said,”

No, it is pretty informative and not biased. The use of words/phrases that do not feel neutral are at a minimum! I did not see any claims on behalf of unnamed groups/people that did not contain citations. They kept it informative.

Citations are really great!!

You used a lot of great citations and had a lot of detail in the writing!

I think this addition was a little too informative with just facts/etc. I think you could possibly gear it towards more of the “controversy” aspect of the assignment.

If you wanted to make it a little less wordy, you could take out some of the excess sentences, “fluff”, etc.

Your citations are bombbb and I’m definitely going to cite more for my article!

Kate.winski (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)